*** eircom and Internet Censoring ***

andyrew120

andyrew120 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here's a copy/paste of what i sent:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have recently been reading into the whole situation regarding the IRMA (Irish Recorded Music Association) and Eircom Broadband. After having a read through of http://blackoutireland.com/ curiousity got the better of me, and I decided to send an email to yourselves.


I was wondering if you could inform me of Irish Broadband's stance on the whole issue? Will Irish Broadband follow in the footsteps of Eircom, and begin to censor websites as requested by the IRMA, or will Irish Broadband stand their ground and refuse to do such a thing?


I won't bother going into a whole big rant about threatening to leave as a customer, etc. (anyone with common sense can tell that Eircom and any ISP that follow them are digging their own grave) but I'm just genuinely interested, as a customer, where Irish Broadband stand on this matter.


Thank you for your time,

Shane Maguire

I think i was nice and straight forward enough.

silvine

I've yet to here back from Three or UPC but according to an article in the Sunday Business Post the ISPs have yet to respond to IRMA. So keep sending those letters in.

DinoBot

is there a facebook group or anything to help promote this blacout week ?

jor el

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Thats the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Eircom have been given a court order why the hell would you blame them. Its the judges decision.

The settlement on the "Three Strikes" policy was out of court. No court order has been made in respect of any of this, yet.

aidan_walsh

Eircom mobile subsid Meteor will be applying the policy to customers as well, it was revealed during the launch of their new 3G modem service a short time ago.

aidan_walsh

DinoBot wrote:

is there a facebook group or anything to help promote this blacout week ?

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=53586632674

Nody

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Well they opposed and eventually had to come to a settlement; they were accused of allowing illegal activity and as the law is vague on this issue there is a good chance it would have went against them. Not much they, or any other ISP can do. I'd be surprised if any ISP fights this unfortunately. Its up to the government to legislate.

Err no, it is a good chance it would not go against them under the carrier act even if a Irish court would rule against it they would win on European level as this has been tried and struck down at EU level (see Denmark and Italy for example).

jor el

Nody wrote: »

Err no, it is a good chance it would not go against them under the carrier act even if a Irish court would rule against it they would win on European level as this has been tried and struck down at EU level (see Denmark and Italy for example).

All it needs is just one of the ISPs to take up the fight.

It looks like Blacknight hosting would take it up, if they are brought to court, as they've already told IRMA to go and jump, but their not an ISP, so I don't know if IRMA would issue court proceedings against them at all.

blubloblu

Blackout Ireland made page three of the Irish Times today.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0304/1224242232688.html

They've also got a press release up: http://blog.blackoutireland.com/post/83480644/press-release-blackout-ireland-call-for-protest

aidan_walsh

You can now show your support here on boards too.

tanora78

This post has been deleted.

andyrew120

andyrew120 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah they're not the most informative, but if people are actually emailing their ISPs about this, then the people in customer service of these companies are probably (hopefully) sick to the teeth of looking at that kinda email.

Sadly, I don't think too many people seem that bothered about the whole issue (but of course, they will when it is enforced).

jor el

You should also contact IRMA, to express your disappointment at their actions. I emailed them yesterday and told them if they want to go blocking websites that eircom should be one of the first to go.

I read recently about IRMA's requests to various ISPs to block websites that actively support illegal downloads. Under this proposal, I would like to suggest that one of the first websites to be blocked, should be www.eircom.ie. The reason I suggest eircom's website is their current radio advertisement, in which they mention using their broadband service to watch episodes of Desperate Housewives. There is currently no legal method of downloading TV episodes in Ireland, so the only way to do this is by using illegal services. As an apparent proponent of illegal downloading, shouldn't eircom.ie be blocked?

I understand that TV downloading is outside of IRMA's remit, but I imagine you should be concerned that a company you have made an agreement with, in regard to illegal downloading, is itself a proponent of illegal downloads, of any kind.

No response.

silvine

Here's UPC's response

Thank you for your email, I have reviewed your email and this is an issue with eircom and we are safely monitoring this situation.

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us on our freephone number 1908 or email us on customer.support@upc.ie

Just read the Desperate House Wives things - brilliant, well spotted!

Nick_oliveri

blubloblu wrote: »

Blackout Ireland made page three of the Irish Times today.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0304/1224242232688.html

The campaign is inspired by a similar one in New Zealand, where users protested that a proposed copyright law would see those accused of copyright infringement disconnected from their service provider. As part of the protest, some websites shut down for half a day, replacing their sites with a “blackout” screen explaining the protest.

I think it would be a good idea for Irish websites to follow suit and gain publicity, perhaps shutting down for longer (yes, i know) so more people can be made aware of the situation. Im not suggesting boards should go it alone, there would need to be cross .ie domain communication and agreement.

EvilMonkey

andyrew120 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is the problem everyone assumes if you are against this you are a pirate, we need to make it clear this is not about piracy but is about censorship of the Internet and disconnecting people without a court order.

bealtine

jor el wrote: »

I emailed them yesterday and told them if they want to go blocking websites that eircom should be one of the first to go.

That is inspired...if we attack prominent websites like that and get IRMA to dance around like the nutjobs they are, it will show their strategy up for being so silly and pointless.

So rte.ie, google,yahoo,youtube etc should all be on the "hit list" to be banned as probably, at some stage, have hosted copyright infringing material.

Nick_oliveri

I wonder could some pictures used in avatars and signatures be considered copyright infringement also. Obviously it depends on the creator, but we would see a lot of forums blacked out then. Hell, lets go crazy and assume guilt all over the place, only allow sanctioned websites on the list through.

bealtine

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I wonder could some pictures used in avatars and signatures be considered copyright infringement also. Obviously it depends on the creator, but we would see a lot of forums blacked out then. Hell, lets go crazy and assume guilt all over the place, only allow sanctioned websites on the list through.

http://twentymajor.net/2009/03/04/eircom-what-a-bunch-of-****kicking-****ehawks/

Not safe for work, IRMA or eircom...

bunglemark2

Dumb question...and I haven't been on in a while...
I'm with BT - have they blocked piratebay and other torrents, or ave Eircom done it for them ?

PaddyTheNth

bunglemark2 wrote: »

Dumb question...and I haven't been on in a while...
I'm with BT - have they blocked piratebay and other torrents, or ave Eircom done it for them ?

No one has blocked anything yet.

If this goes ahead, each ISP will have to come to their own agreement with IRMA.

bunglemark2

Funny....I tried to have a look earlier on, just for academic research of course (!) and got a HTTP 500 response....that could be a legit error but I don't know - any takers ? Same for Mininova

PaddyTheNth

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/

Its just you. Useful in this situation.

blubloblu

The blackout movement is gaining momentum. Aubrey Robinson has now been interviewed on cork Red Fm, 2fm, Phantom and Today FM

blubloblu

blubloblu wrote: »

The blackout movement is gaining momentum. Aubrey Robinson has now been interviewed on cork Red Fm, 2fm, Phantom and Today FM

Who's Aubrey, and what was said? Was it good or bad (for us)?

bealtine

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/news/three-strikes-and-out-is-silently-dropped-but-what-next-for-piracy-523.html

‘Three strikes and out’ is silently dropped. But what next for piracy?
8:24 pm - March 3rd, 2009
Category: Broadband Issues, Broadband Regulation

The BPI has confirmed to SamKnows that although there has been no official statement, it has ditched its call on ISPs to warn, warn again and then disconnect illegal file shares – the so called ‘three strikes and out’ approach.

Whilst it claims to have never used the phrase associated with the practice, a spokesperson for the record industry’s right holders group revealed it now sees the way forward as working with the record industry to instigate a ‘graduated warning’ system. In this throttling a connection should be a consideration and, despite the past policy of trying to enforce ‘three strikes and out’ on ISPs being dropped, disconnection should still be considered in discussions as “a final sanction”, the BPI insists.

The partially placatory move towards agreeing a common solution comes after the Digital Britain interim report by Stephen Carter made no reference to ‘three strikes and out’ as a workable means of dealing with piracy and instead suggested a Rights Agency is set up so rights holders, distributors and ISPs can thrash out a solution that is amenable to all.

Hence the BPI spokesperson revealed its focus is now on forming this body and suggesting how piracy can be dealt with against the startling backdrop of illegal downloads outnumbering legal purchases by twenty to one.

“Skin in the game”

For intellectual property lawyer, Alexander Brown, who represents both rights holders and several ISPs as a partner at law firm Simmons and Simmons, the ditching of ‘three strikes and out’ is a welcome move but, he concedes, the record industry still has to realise it is asking ISPs to risk a lot for no reward.

“I think Carter’s suggestion of the Rights Agency is basically him suggesting to the right holders that they’ve got to give the ISPs some skin in the game,” he says.

“You can’t expect to release unprotected material and then have the ISPs who don’t profit from its sale round up suspects for you. They’ve quite rightly been thinking what’s in it for them? All they’re being asked to do is increase the risk of churn and alienate their users and they get nothing in return at a time when they’re desperate to hold on to their customers.”

For the time being the BPI is content with nearly all the major ISPs issuing educational letters to subscribers whose accounts have been linked to illegal file sharing. However, the body is adamant that this is just an initial testing of waters to see if it does hold back sharing; ultimately, a ‘graduated warning’ is needed.

It believes the process of rights holders going to the courts to enforce ISPs to reveal contact details for people suspected of file sharing is fine in principle but it becomes difficult when the numbers are so high. Hence, the need for a joint new initiative.

ISPs happy with court orders

However, the feedback from the ISP community is that they prefer the court order approach. Certainly Felix Geyr, Managing Director of Be Broadband recently summed up the situation to SamKnows as ISPs not wanting to accuse their users of illegal activity, preferring right holders to take the legal route which gives an ISP no alternative other than to provider a user’s details. It mitigates any concern over data protection and demonstrates that the information was not volunteered but was supplied in accordance with a court order.

According to Alexander Brown this attitude will prevail until the rights holders find some way of cutting the ISPs in on the proceeds of online distribution. Although the BPI is adamant that the Digital Britain report was right in suggesting all parties should contribute financially to the setting up of a Rights Agency, Brown believes this will be unworkable unless the ISPs are incentivised by either rights holders funding the protection of their material or setting up music shops in which ISPs are stakeholders.

“It’s one thing to sue Pirate Bay or, back in the day, Napster because there is clearly a case to answer, the sites are there to allow illegal downloads,” he says.

“To involve ISPs whose pipes are used for these downloads is just crazy and they’re not going to do what the record industry wants unless they’re incentivised by rights holders funding the potential Rights Agency or the record labels cutting them in on distribution. They basically need to do broadband equivalents of the Nokia Comes With Music phone. It’s the only way it’s going to work. Otherwise the ISPs will just say they’re happy to receive court orders and let the rights holders continue to pick up the expense of the legal action.”

In the meantime, as discussions over the make-up of a potential Rights Agency are discussed, attention will turn to the record labels suing the founders of Pirate Bay in Sweden. The founders face large fines if the notorious file sharing site is found guilty of helping web users share, what the defence claims as, millions of pounds worth of copyrighted material.

Although a guilty verdict would shut the site down the fear is that many sites would simply spring up in its place, as was the case when the illegal version of Napster was shut down nine years ago.

Duiske

IRMA's legal threats 'spurious' - Irish Isp's

The recent threat of legal action from Irish music industry body IRMA to Irish ISP’s that do not comply to the same ‘three strikes’ terms as Eircom, has been labelled as “spurious” by the Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland (ISPAI).

Paul Durrant, general manager of the ISPAI, said there is “no evidence of wrong doing” on the part of Irish internet service providers (ISPs).

IRMA’s letter, received last month by ISPs across Ireland, asked these companies to follow Eircom in removing customers found to be illegally accessing copyright material. The letter stated that this request is in accordance with Irish and European law.

“These actions could impact on user privacy, damage the development of new internet services and hurt Ireland's standing as an e-commerce hub,” Durrant explained.

He went on to say that the ISPAI and its members have never condoned the use of its members’ services for theft of copyrighted works of any kind, and continue to operate within the existing legal framework, which has provisions for taking action where appropriate.

“Over two years ago, ISPAI initiated meetings with the relevant music industry representative body to explore the issues, but this was not followed up by the music industry,” he said.

Durrant stated that existing Irish copyright law already gives IRMA a route to legally pursuing through the courts people found to be in breach of copyright.

“Privacy of user communications is protected in European and Irish legislation. ISPs cannot be expected to ignore these, merely because it does not suit another private party,” he added.

Durrant also said that IRMA’s request would breach the privacy of customers, and would have serious implications for the continued location of international e-business in this country and the jobs this generates.

“The ISPAI is disappointed that the great potential of the internet, to provide opportunities to connect with users in new ways and develop new business models, is being missed by the music recording industry.”

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/12506/comms/internet-body-labels-irma-legal-threat-spurious

bealtine

http://www.lgi.com/pdf/080904Booz_english.pdf

Here is a report from management consultancy firm Booz and Company. They have analysed the situation and have come to the economic conclusion that the losses to the telecomunications industry from a 3 strikes or any form of graduated response, would be much higher than any potential gains to the music industry.

The report called Digital Confidence, securing the next wave of digital growth, does up a calculation for a hypothetical scenario of terminating internet access to persistent filesharers in the UK.
In essence the report says :

"One aspect often overlooked in public discussions on the merits of “three strikes” is the damage to the overall digital economy as the result of disconnecting significant numbers of users from the Internet. Implications of “three strikes” would need to be understood more holistically. A high-level sensitivity calculation, for the UK as an example, estimates “three strikes” to result in the disconnection of 500,000 users and a revenue loss of €180 million for the network operators . In comparison, the music industry assesses an upside of only €33 million in revenue—this total revenue loss of about €150 million is likely to be only a minor share of the downside for other stakeholders, for example, through the reduction of e-Commerce volume. In addition to the fact that users would be disconnected from digital life, the potential economic damage caused across the digital economy value chain makes “three strikes” a challenging concept in terms of finding a proportional remedy to combat piracy."


Also that cutting people off will create knockon effects in the digital economy. losses to ISPs, ecommerce and so on on down the line.

The report is not only about only about the hypothetical three strikes policy, it is also an analysis of issues that are likely to effect the digital economy.

Sorry if im being naive, but that's it dead and buried, essentially, isn't it?

Kershaw.D

I think that In someways eircom is right ,
I think that they should block sites like limewire & piratebay but I don't think that they should block sites like downloads.nl , or block users that receive a song in an email and download it

I also don't agree with them banning users from accessing the web , they could even get them to agree to let eircom monitor all downloaded files.

Another thing that I think that they could do would be if they let the Music Companies bring us to court to get us banned , like instead of eircom banning us then they bring us all to court separate to get them banned.

It wont actually effect me all that much as I usually get my music from iTunes , I have only downloaded 1 song in the last 2 years , and that was because my iTunes account wasn't working.

The main problem is privacy rights.

One thing that I would like to know is what will happen to places like offices, hotels , McDonalds and Internet cafes that offer Internet access , if people download music using there web , will they be disconnected ??
And also will the music campanies try to fine us after they find people downloading they music?? =]